The High Court of Karnataka, Chief Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum, ordered notice in a Public Interest Litigation filed by Samaj Parivarthan Samudaya challenging the appointment of Sriyuts – M.P. Renukacharya , Mahadev Prakash, Mohan A. Limbikai , Sunil G.S., Shankargowda Patil, M.B. Marmkal and Laksminarayana as advisors to Chief Minister …
Category Archives: Uncategorized
Civil Procedure Code. Attachment before judgment. The purpose of Order 38 Rule 5 is not to convert an unsecured debt into a secured debt. Any attempt by a plaintiff to utilise the provision as a leverage for coercing the defendant to settle the suit claim should be discouraged. Supreme Court.
Raman Tech. & Process Engg. Co. v. Solanki Traders, (2008) 2 SCC 302 Judgment Link: https://main.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/31173.pdf PDF Copy HELD: 4. The object of supplemental proceedings (applications for arrest or attachment before judgment, grant of temporary injunctions and appointment of receivers) is to prevent the ends of justice being defeated. The object of Order 38 Rule …
Civil Procedure Code. Order 40 Rule 1. Appointment of a Receiver in pending suit is only on a prima facie finding that the plaintiff has an excellent chance of success in the suit. Supreme Court.
Parmanand Patel v. Sudha A. Chowgule, (2009) 11 SCC 127. Judgment Link: https://main.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/34044.pdf PDF Copy: HELD: 23. A Receiver, having regard to the provisions contained in Order 40 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is appointed only when it is found to be just and convenient to do so. Appointment of a Receiver …
Partnership Act, 1932. When there are only two partners, on the death of one of them, the firm is deemed to be dissolved even though the contract provides otherwise. Supreme Court.
Mohd. Laiquiddin v. Kamala Devi Misra, (2010) 2 SCC 407. Judgment Link: https://main.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/35888.pdf Relevant paragraphs: 22. The sole issue raised by the respondents in this appeal, who are the appellants in Civil Appeals Nos. 4411-12 of 2002, is whether the finding of the courts below that the partnership firm stood dissolved on account of death …
Karnataka High Court follows 1948 Privy Council judgment on boundary dispute. “The judgment has become Locus Classicus even after seven decades”. – HC
Dr. Jayasheela Venu and another vs A.J.F. D’Souza and others. Regular First Appeal 1225/2011 decided on 15 January 2021. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/358438/1/RFA1225-11-15-01-2021.pdf Locus Classicus = An authoritative passage from a standard work that is often quoted as an illustration. Appeal allowed. Compiled by S. Basavaraj, Advocate, Daksha Legal.
Civil Procedure Code. Transfer of case under Section 24. Though balance of convenience of the parties is a relevant consideration, in matrimonial matters, convenience of the wife is to be preferred. Karnataka High Court.
Shivangouda vs Savita. Civil Petition 200006/2019 decided on 4 January 2021. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/358444/1/CP200006-19-04-01-2021.pdf Relevant portion: It would be relevant to note that the basic principle governing the granting of a petition under Section 24 CPC is that the petition is not to be dealt with in a light hearted manner and transfer of a …
Bangalore and Mysore Turf Clubs. Staggering revenue loss to Government. Karnataka High Court expresses displeasure at the sad state of affairs.
Bangalore Turf Club Limited vs State Information Commissioner. Writ Petition 18449/2015 and connected matters decided on 13 January 2021. Justice P.B. Bajanthri. Judgment Link: https://karnatakajudiciary.kar.nic.in/noticeBoard/WP18449.2015_16012021.pdf Relevant paragraphs: 28. In this context, it is necessary to reproduceextract of the KIC order dated 01.07.2013 (Sri Umapathi Svs PIO & The Secretary, BTC, (Para.10 and 11 ofW.P.18449/2015) “Firstly, land …
Bangalore Turf Club, Ladies Club, and The Institute of Engineer (India) are ‘public authority’ under the Right to Information Act 2005. Karnataka High Court.
Bangalore Turf Club Limited vs State Information Commissioner. Writ Petition 18449/2015 and connected matters decided on 13 January 2021. Judgment Link: https://karnatakajudiciary.kar.nic.in/noticeBoard/WP18449.2015_16012021.pdf Relevant paragraphs: 2. In these petitions, contesting respondents –complainants filed applications seeking certain information fromthe respective petitioners. In not providing information soughtor in not taking any action on their application, contestingrespondents resorted to …
Delay tactics by defendant. Karnataka High Court rejects H.D. Devegowda’s petition to reopen the trial against him for defamation.
H.D.Devegowda vs M/s. Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprise Limited. Writ Petition 725/2021 decided on 15 January 2021. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/358443/1/WP725-21-15-01-2021.pdf Relevant paragraphs: 2(a) The suit was filed by the respondent on 27.06.2012; it is founded on alleged defamation; plaintiff claims the damages in a sum of Rupees Ten Crore; Written Statement has been filed on 13.08.2012 …
Suits founded on the tort of defamation need to be tried expeditiously. Public memory being too short, the claim for redressal for the hurt of reputation merits speedier consideration. Karnataka High Court.
H.D.Devegowda vs M/s. Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprise Limited. Writ Petition 725/2021 decided on 15 January 2021. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/358443/1/WP725-21-15-01-2021.pdf Relevant paragraphs: 2 (c) ….The opinion of the learned judge that the petitioner has been dragging on the suit proceeding is formed on the basis of what has been reflected in the Order Sheet; there is …
Daksha Legal 